[33047] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: small device with IP address
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Thu Dec 21 17:12:07 2000
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:05:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <NDBBJEKMCLGFFODIPIMIIEDOCKAA.gibiault@li.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0012212259320.14553-100000@uplift.swm.pp.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Christopher Gibiault wrote:
> Mikael ,
>
> Is there a reason you don't want to ping the Ethernet port of the router? I
> think this would be more stable then any "HOST" on the network.
It would if we did it the classical way by putting a router in the
customers facilities but we do not.
One way we do it is by L2 hop (VLAN) the customer to a more centrally
placed switchrouter and aggregate there. The customer is connected via
fiber, using ethernet 10/100/1000 depending on the customer. The customer
may only have a FX/TX-converter at their facility, or they may have a
switch (of which will probably not have an IP address in the vlan the
customer resides in).
Also, I would like to address some IGP issues where routes are not
propagated properly, our equipment is still reachable but the routes to
the customer is not.
Basically what I want to do is test it all the way.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
